Share this

Following the Colorado shooting shooting tragedy Friday, gun control advocates are calling for a renewed examination of the nation’s firearms laws. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are among the most outspoken on the issue.

Is a push for stricter gun laws appropriate in this time of grief and sorrow?

Before he is made into a poster child for gun control, its worth noting that James Holmes is proof that maniacs don't always leave a mental or criminal trail, and that no manner of background checks would have kept him from building his own arsenal.

And if the point is that the kind of high intensity firepower used in the attack is too accessible, its worth asking the following: does the most ardent advocate of gun control seriously doubt that if assault weapons were banned tomorrow, they would only be pushed underground? Does anyone question that if drugs and prostitution flourish outside the law, a black market on guns would thrive just as easily? Is there any denying a murderous sociopath would find a way to crash that black market, and do some version of what James Holmes did? And finally, is there any remotely constitutional theory of gun regulation that would ban the garden variety machine gun that did its own share of the killing in Aurora?

It’s momentarily appealing, and perhaps shrewd advocacy on the part of the left, to blame the legal gun culture as the actual culprit for Aurora, but it’s also a stunningly off-base illusion.

How would more stringent gun control measures have prevented this horrific crime? They wouldn't have. This mass murder was carried out by an evil, deranged psychopath, James Holmes. He acquired homemade explosives and makeshift grenades, and no doubt would have found some way to carry out this attack whether with an assault rifle or otherwise.

The very people calling for tighter gun control measures don't know a thing about the weapons they seek to ban. Sen. Dianne Feinstein attacked the killer's semi-automatic rifle and 100-round drum magazine, as if that were the key enabler of this crime. Rather than being exceptionally deadly, these large drum magazines are prone to jamming, which is why the U.S. military does not utilize them. Latest accounts indicate that, in fact, Holmes' weapon did jam.

The one thing that could have made a difference in preventing this crime (or at least minimizing the damage) would have been an armed member (or members) of the audience. Is it coincidence that all the bulk of mass shootings in recent American history have occurred in places where strict provisions ban firearms - movie theatre, high schools and universities? When plotting the attacks, the killers can assume that these places are soft targets that will offer no armed resistance because guns are not allowed.

Rather than more gun control, LESS gun control would have likely made a difference. An expectation that some members of the audience may be armed (trained, law-abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons) would likely have discouraged the attack from ever taking place and if it did, then at least limiting the carnage and minimizing casualties.

Yes it is time to consider reviving the assault weapoms ban, as leaders from Dianne Feinstein to Rupert Murdoch have opined tnis weekend. As Norway marks the one-year anniversary of Oslo and Utoya and Americans mourn for Aurora, we must consider ways to keep our children safe and free. A national conversation focusing on balancing liberty and security such as the one we had after 9/11 is valid and necessary.

Many of us are already having this debate as we strive to hardwire both open-mindedness and self-preservation in our kids. Every weekday I drop my toddler at her preschool past jersey barriers, car trunk checks, security guards and personalized keypad access doors. Last week as we ate ice cream in the cafe, an abandoned backpack prompted a conversation about safety among several parents. Sadly, that is the "new normal" for the 9/11 generation growing up after terrorist attacks, airplane hijackers, school and camp shootings, and now a movie massacre.

But we must insist on mitigating damages. If have to undergo preschool safety checks every morning, why does a random thug get to own an assaut rifle?

Some say that we should treat mass shootings as inevitable as natural disasters. Maybe so - but if we can proscribe seismic retrofitting, fire retardants and levees, we should be able to discuss keeping guns out of the hands of kids and criminals, and about reducing the number of persons killed by assault weapons and multiple ammo rounds the next time danger strikes. Which it will.

Gun control is a legitimate public policy issue. It is only natural after a crazed gunman fires off a hundred rounds at innocent civilians that advocates of tighter gun restrictions will want to point out that this is an example of why restrictions on gun/bullet purchases are needed. However, it is also true that many ordinary voters react negatively if they perceive an attempt to politicize a tragedy. What to some is a sincere and passionate attempt to change laws so that further tragedies can be avoided, can come across to others as just crass politics.

I know many gun control advocates and they are motivated by a genuine desire to save lives. But they need to be careful in the aftermath of a national tragedy. It's a tricky tightrope indeed.

Those wishing to do evil will always find ways to get guns, just as there is a brisk market for illegal drugs. Honest, law-abiding people need to be able to get them and carry them legally to defend themselves. If James Holmes had pulled this stunt in an Israeli movie theater, where people routinely carry guns, he would have been shot quickly by someone in the audience. People should to buy guns and learn how to use them responsibly.

Now is not the time for a reasoned, constructive gun control debate. Families must be allowed time to grieve, the injured to heal, and law enforcement to investigate this yet another example of a shooter destroying the lives of innocent people.

A debate now would be too heavily influence by availability bias. A judgment flaw that causes people to overestimate the significance of rare events and underestimate the magnitude of common occurrences. Over the last few days, media attention has been focused on assault rifles. But illegal gun trade is a larger but rarely discussed problem. Eighty percent of all gun related crime is committed with these. The average person has a much greater chance of being shot by an illegal handgun than an AK-47.

Guns are a highly polarizing. Gun control advocates demonize guns, and 2nd Amendment advocates believe that the government wants to take them away. Until we establish a forum for respectful dialogue, the debate will yield little more than recalcitrance and rage. Making it all the more easy for some politicians to toss around manipulative talking points.

Sadly, I suspect that people will forget this senseless tragedy as fast as it happened. All eyes focused back on the romper room of this year’s presidential race.

My heart is so heavy with sorrow for the victims of the Colorado theater shooting that I am almost unable to respond. But respond we must, as individuals and as a nation.

And after we care for our dead and wounded and after we grieve with their families and after all the fine words but no call to action from President Obama and Mitt Romney who wants to be president, then what?

Without question it's time for stricter gun laws such as this one introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, to ban the sale of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds at a time.

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein rightly says "Weapons of war don't belong on the streets."

No gun control law can prevent a rampage by a deranged person, or by any person intent on causing harm. But sensible restrictions on access to guns can make such events less likely and less lethal.

It's shameful to let the NRA browbeat political leaders and the American public into believing we shouldn't discuss politics at a moment like this. Refusing to tackle the gun control issue deliberately made controversial by the organization that brooks no restrictions on weapons of mass destruction in civilized society is pure political cowardice.

Activists for any cause face a dilemma: If they advocate for their beliefs in the face of tragedy, they might be accused of insensitivity. If they don’t, the spotlight will fade and move on to a different issue before they’ve ever had a chance to make their case. As any fundraiser knows, you have to strike while the issue is hot. So the question isn’t whether or not activists should speak out after a tragedy — they should — but rather the manner in which they do it.

Asking Americans to think about solutions at the time they are most paying attention to the problem is absolutely appropriate. Failure to do so what would be inappropriate. Speaking of which, good that the injured victims were able to get health care without bankrupting their families, isn't it?

Carlos SierraPresident of Sierra Public Affairs; Former Campaign Manager Buddy Roemer for President :

Political debate and discourse is always appropriate in our democratic republic. What is not appropriate is when politicians and pundits speak on behalf of victims and make it appear that they support their cause.

Gun control is a terrific sounding idea – especially in the aftermath of a tragedy, but once the grief and sadness begins to fade away, gun control begins to be a repugnant idea.

Are there safeguards that can be considered and, perhaps, adopted to prevent future tragedies? I’m sure there are; I’m not a gun expert. But liberals and Democrats like Sen. Feinstein and Mayor Bloomberg are not interested in the issue of safeguards. Gun control in their universe means the confiscation of guns, no less. Americans know it! Feinstein, Bloomberg and their followers find that it makes perfect sense to take guns from law abiding Americans. What remains are criminals, terrorists, and the government in control of all the guns.

There is no doubt that what happened in Colorado this week was senseless and cold-blooded murder. But how does it make any sense for the government to take your widowed mother’s gun away from her while her neighborhood thug has a gun in every room in his apartment?

I’ve found that the worst legislation is passed when it is considered in the heat of passion. We saw it with Sarbanes-Oxley after Arthur Anderson went down and Dodd-Frank in the aftermath of the financial crisis. All reasonable people today consider those laws to be terribly flawed public policy. Now Democrats want gun control in response to this disaster.

Americans would be open to sensible ideas to get at the root causes of why these murderers do what they do, but they recoil when government officials begin to rewrite the Second Amendment. People want to have the option to protect their families against criminals who will ALWAYS have guns.

One wonders how many times we have to go through this. A person is killed with guns every 15 minutes. That even more than mass murders should set the agenda. Mass ammunition clips and semiautomatic weapons should be outlawed. These weapons are deemed too dangerous to be used by police or military on bases and we let anyone buy them with mail order.

I can only imagine the heartbreak and grief that the Aurora community and so many families of this tragedy are enduring. Now is not the time for politics or yet another assault on our constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment Rights - instead, it is a time for Americans to rally together and provide comfort and prayer to the victims and those families who lost a loved one. It is a shame folks like Sen. Feinstein don't have the sense to do so.

All the gun control laws in the world would not have stopped this deranged maniac from the heinous crime in Aurora. Anybody who has the wherewithal to booby trap his apartment with sophisticated wiring and explosives like he did, would certainly have found a way to circumvent any and all gun laws. Let's spend time trying to determine what sent him over the cliff rather than chasing new gun laws.

No. In fact, it's never appropriate. Gun control advocates don't believe in the private ownership of firearms and will seize on any excuse like vultures over a carcass to push their position. Fortunately the U.S. Constitution stands in their way. What happened in Colorado was awful, tragic, and every other adjective that can be appropriately applied. Stricter gun laws would not have prevented it and the "gun grabbers" are wrong to suggest they would.

In the eyes of the NRA & the Cons they lord over there's never a good time. I say let's talk about it while there's evidence before the nation of how legally purchased, once banned, assault weapons are being used by psychopaths.

I believe in the Second Amendment but no right is absolute and above reasonable restriction in the public interest. Of course the NRA thinks otherwise. They are strict constructionists. I guess that means they feel weapons are needed to overthrow the Goverment as Jefferson intended. Maybe it's time to question their patriotism. Or maybe they feel they need a big gun to compensate for some other personal deficiency.

We pushed for the Brady bill after Reagan's spokesman was shot in the assassination attempt on the then President. It would disrespect the memory of those lives lost in the tragedy if it does not lead to a change in policy.

New gun-control measures are a non-starter in today's political environment. Not only are the overwhelming majority of Republican members of Congress gun fanatics, but even a significant number of Democrats from more conservative states and districts would make an ostentatious show of breaking with their party on this issue. It's all blow and no go.

Tragedies often lead to the desire to make sure lives were not lost in vain. That's a healthy reaction in times of great loss and speaks directly to the human need to believe our lives — however brief they are — have purpose. In that sense, positive change can come when unexpected tragedies lead to a reevaluation of public policy.

On the other hand, there will always be those who seek to exploit the emotions of the public for political gain. As Rahm Emanuel famously said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." The gun control debate is particularly susceptible to this type of exploitation because it evokes an emotional response from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

The problem is that emotional responses rarely lead to logical conclusions, and increased government control is rarely a solution for society's ills. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Not only is it appropriate to talk about it now, it is necessary. Every moment that goes by since the Aurora murders in which our policy making establishment is not working urgently to prevent a re-occurance of these all-too-familiar massacres is a moment during which we desecrate the memories of those killed.

At some point, the repeated unnecessary loss of civilian life goes from being tragic to pathetic because of a societies consistent inability to deal with the problem seriously. I'm sorry to say we reached that point many mass shootings ago. The gunman in Aurora likely fired more shots in a few moments in one auditorium than the entire German police force fired in all of 2011. Think about that. A society with fewer gun related deaths is possible.

The victims in Aurora are not the first victims of mass shootings but we owe it to them and their families to do everything possible to ensure they are the last. Urging silence at this moment because it is 'too soon' is effectively a repressive tactic that will allow public anger to dissipate and be distracted by new issues that occur. Enough already. I don't care if it is an election season when candidates are hesitant to take strong positions on divisive issues that didn't see coming. Just think if new policies were put into place after the last mass shooting. Maybe the 12 Americans who died last week would still be with their families now. Do you think they really care right now about how this debate might effect the election chances of this or that candidate? It's time to do something. Now.

Dewey ClaytonProfessor of Political Science, University of Louisville :

The tragedy in Aurora, Colo. is so horrible. So many families have been ruined forever, for no reason. The question, in my opinion, should be since the Colorado massacre, when will we as Americans have the political will and courage to examine our gun laws, notwithstanding powerful pro-gun lobbying groups. Now would be a good time to begin such debate anew. Yes, one may argue that now is not the time. But I am reminded of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: if not now, when?

Jonathan PrinceDemocratic consultant and former State Department official :

When you experience a crisis - as a society, a business, a family, or an individual - one of the healthiest things you can do is examine the possible causes and take steps to change them. I believe the Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns - but like just about every other right, that doesn't mean it's utterly unfettered. Law-abiding citizens who know how to safely operate and store guns should be able to own and use them. But that doesn't mean hunters need anti-aircraft artillery, machine guns, or assault weapons. And it doesn't mean anybody with internet access should be able to order unlimited ammunition. The idea that nobody on earth objects to requiring a license to operate cars, but people vehemently object to requiring licenses for guns is mind-boggling in its absurdity.

With the series of mass murders in recent years, it is time for a serious discussion about assault weapons. The federal ban expired in 2004 and those types of weapons do not endanger the rights of hunters. Common sense dictates that assault weapons which can fire hundreds of rounds in a short period of time are dangerous and require legislative action. How many more times do these types of heinous crimes have to happen before we wake up and place some restrictions on assault guns? I would like to see candidates Romney and Obama show some leadership on this important issue.

The NRA and the millions of US gun owners who have repeatedly pledged fealty to it have apparently concluded that it is worth the sacrifice of a few hundred (or more) innocent people a year (including young children) so that every American who wants to own a high-powered, rapid firing, deadly assault rifle can have one. Of course I wouldn't expect them to put it this way, but that is the inescapable conclusion we can draw from their words and actions.Think nothing of it - that's just the price of second ammendment freedom, my friends! Don't let the liberals try to confuse you and take away your AK-47s!

Gun control advocates will speak out with great passion, the few politicians not already purchased heart an soul by the NRA will nevertheless exhibit zero political courage and hide their heads in the sand, and nothing will happen. Nothing. Then, in a few weeks, or a few months, a twisted, messed-up person who, thanks to the zealous political efforts of the gun lobby, can obtain unconscionable amount of firepower with little more effort than it takes to buy a Starbucks coffee, will strike again. And we can repeat the same fruitless cycle. It is disheartening, disgusting, and oh so predictable.

What we CAN do is look forward to the wonderful day when the dreams of Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert and other great humanists are realized, and all Americans are armed to the teeth day and night, and ready to defend themselves. Just imagine how much better the situation in Aurora would have been if, amidst the smoke and shootting, half a dozen other people in the darkened theater had opened fire with their own rapid-fire automatic weapons. What a splendid future we can anticipate!

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.